Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]I still accept common descent, but I think God ran the process and prepared for future problems, so I do not misunderstand your position. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: She did not “design her feet in advance”. You constantly misrepresent my theory by saying it involves foreseeing the future. It doesn’t. Organisms/cell communities respond to the needs of the present.
> 
> And again you skip the gaps in the fossil record. Changes are always after the gap, no itty bitty adaptive steps ever seen..
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Further your theory ignores the gaps in the fossil record with its assumption the cell committees adapt, that would imply a gradual change for which there is no record. The gaps tell us that the cell committees would have bean able to see the necessary future designs that were needed. Really![/i]
> > 
> > How often must I emphasize that they do NOT foresee anything! The gaps tell us that once there were no transverse arches, and later there were transverse arches. My comment was:
> > dhw: [i]It’s a pity we don’t have a few thousand pre-Lucys to see how stiff all her ancestors’ feet were. And then a few thousand more fossils to see how stiff the feet were between all the generations of all the hominins and early homos prior to Sapiens. Without them, of course, it’s impossible to say how fast or slow the adaptation was.[/i]
> 
> So we are left with gaps tht strongly support design.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Agreed, but she survived and my God took care of the needed designs. We have to work with the only fossils we have.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: That does not mean we can assume that there was not a gradual development and that your God must have jumped in at a specific moment to pop in a transverse arch.
> 
> Your double negative again  suggests itty bitty adaptations, with no evidence.
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] It still looks like H. sapiens ended with most unusual unexpected characteristics.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Unexpected by whom? There are loads of species that ended with most unusual characteristics. Why is the human foot more unusual than the elephant’s trunk or the camel’s hump? But yes, humans are remarkable animals, and yes, we can only work with the fossils we have. These suggest a stage by stage development of certain organs, supporting the case for common descent.
> 
> I  agree common descent run by God the designer.